The other leadership crisis

What with all the current media focus on Blair and Brown, little attention has been paid thus far to the other unresolved leadership issue in British politics: whether Ming Campbell should be quietly pensioned off as leader of the Liberal Democrats.

As regular readers of this blog will know, I didn't support him as leader, but when he won I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Ming is a decent man, of that there is no question, but my suspicions that he would prove ill-suited to the demands of modern politics have proved sadly correct, and it is not just Tory MPs and part-time bloggers who think he cannot take the party through the glass ceiling.

He has failed to give the Liberal Democrats the distinctive branding and youthful appeal they had under Ashdown and Kennedy and even his House of Commons performances, which were expected to be his strong suit, have been stumbling.

Sir Ming's official explanation for last Thursday's underwhelming local election performance has been to say that it was a "night of consolidation."

But consolidation is not good enough for an opposition party when a Government is this unpopular. They must be making gains.

Party loyalty being what it is, there has been very little debate thus far in the Lib Dem blogosphere about this issue - where is the sadly-now-defunct Ming's Dynasty when we need you?

Perhaps the most thoughtful contributions, while stopping short of outright criticism of Sir Ming, have come from Quaequam and Jonathan Calder.

Jonathan writes: "It is hard to resist the conclusion that we Liberal Democrats are close to exhausting the incremental strategy we have followed so far. Local campaigning will continue to win us the odd sear. But in order to make a further breakthrough we shall have to develop policies that appeal to voters outside our current areas of strength.

"The questions then become whether we agree on enough as a party to be able to do that and whether we have the skills to put them across in the national media when we have done so."

Back from the brink

After a couple of days in which it looked like New Labour could genuinely implode, Messrs Blair and Brown appear to have stepped back from the brink once more.

Blair has done the sensible thing and, instead of seeking to provoke Brown beyond endurance, has acknowledged (a) that he probably will end up stepping down well before the end of his third term, (b) that he will organise an orderly handover, and (c) that Gordon remains, publicly at least, his chosen successor.

Inevitably this has been interpreted as meaning he will go next year, but as I have said before, I always thought that was the likelist scenario.

As Nick Robinson has noted, Brown has very little alternative but to go along with this, unless he wants to inherit a fatally divided party.

Of all the punditry that has appeared on this over recent days, quite the most ludicrous came from Robert Harris, who argued that Blair should in fact sack Brown unless he publicly commits to allow him to serve a full third term.

And what do you suppose Gordon would then do next, Mr Harris? Say: "Okay Tony, you win," and slink off to the backbenches to make the occasional speech on neo-endogenous growth theory? No, he would be straight down the Strangers' Bar with Nicky Brown and Dougie Henderson to organise a leadership contest.

By contrast, the most sensible piece of advice was yesterday's Guardian leader pointing out the huge responsibilities now lying on both men to avoid a civil war.

I think they may have just about managed it - for now.

Blair-must-go watch update:

Calling for Blair to go now/this year

Andrew Smith
Frank Dobson
Ashok Kumar
Glenda Jackson
The Guardian
The Daily Telegraph
The Economist
The New Statesman
Polly Toynbee
Matthew Parris
Jonathan Freedland
Stephen Pollard
Paul Linford
Bloggerheads
BBC Newsnight poll
Times Populus poll

Demanding a timetable for leadership handover

Neal Lawson/Compass
Nick Raynsford
Martin Salter

Calling for Blair to go next year

The Times
Rhodri Morgan

Calling for Blair to serve "full third term."

Robert Harris
Janet Anderson

Reshuffle gives new legs to English Parliament campaign

Tony Blair's decision to make John Reid Home Secretary and promote Douglas Alexander to Transport Secretary has given further impetus to the debate about England's democratic deficit, as witness this letter by former Home Secretary Lord Baker in today's Telegraph.

Of the two, I am less concerned by Dr Reid's appointment. Although Scotland has a separate legal system it is not strictly the case that the Home Office is an "English-only" department, especially now that most of its work consists of dealing with homeland security issues.

Slightly more troubling is the appointment of yet another Scot as Transport Secretary, given that transport is not only an entirely devolved matter but that, under the Barnett Formula, the Scottish transport budget is way in excess of that of England's in terms of spending-per-head.

More reaction at the CEP newsblog.